5 Reasons I Will Not Vote For Trump If He Is The GOP Nominee

[truth_seeker]

Well, call me a contrarian, but I think Donald Trump, should he win nomination and the office, will make a really, really, fabulous, terrific president.  ^-^

Plus he is really, really rich, and really, really smart.

[aligncare]

Plus he is really, really rich, and really, really smart.

Now you're getting with the program! Good on you.

[Free Vulcan]

That's pretty much the way I feel.  Trump had numbers in the 30s as little as a month ago.  Now, he's down to 27% in the latest Quinnipiac.

  As the Huckabee's and Santorums and others drop out, their support will NOT go to Trump or he would have it already.  Rubio and Cruz will rise and, ultimately, it will be a face off between those two.

Don't know what the Trumpster-divers do.  Maybe they stay home, which would be ironic given all their ranting about OTHERS staying home.

Nicely framed with pertinent turns of phrase, but that is slicing and dicing the whole story to make a picture that doesn't reflect the reality.

Trump has flew high before, then dropped some, then after Paris spiked again. Now he's dropped again after alot of negative press. But considering the amount of press and his own missteps, he's not dropped that far. That is a sign of strength, not weakness.

All he needs to do is bat the balloon in the air again to get his numbers up. Now as for the others, yes, as others drop out that support will consolidate to the top four. But if Trump, and he has hinted as such, would pick one of those: Cruz, Carson, or Rubio as his running mate, if he is still on top after the first few electoral contests, he would cinch the nomination hands down. You need to factor that move into the calculations.

So all in all, as good as your argument sounds, it's fairly weak. I see nothing yet where Trump is in danger by any other factor than himself. I predict better than 50/50 that it will stay that way. Cruz IMO is the only one with the outside shot if pulling ahead of him.

[aligncare]

Nicely framed with pertinent turns of phrase, but that is slicing and dicing the whole story to make a picture that doesn't reflect the reality.

Trump has flew high before, then dropped some, then after Paris spiked again. Now he's dropped again after alot of negative press. But considering the amount of press and his own missteps, he's not dropped that far. That is a sign of strength, not weakness.

All he needs to do is bat the balloon in the air again to get his numbers up. Now as for the others, yes, as others drop out that support will consolidate to the top four. But if Trump, and he has hinted as such, would pick one of those: Cruz, Carson, or Rubio as his running mate, if he is still on top after the first few electoral contests, he would cinch the nomination hands down. You need to factor that move into the calculations.

So all in all, as good as your argument sounds, it's fairly weak. I see nothing yet where Trump is in danger by any other factor than himself. I predict better than 50/50 that it will stay that way. Cruz IMO is the only one with the outside shot if pulling ahead of him.

No, no, no. Trump is fading. I heard it on CBS-CNN-ABC-NBC. True story. You know how reliable they are.

[sinkspur]

Nicely framed with pertinent turns of phrase, but that is slicing and dicing the whole story to make a picture that doesn't reflect the reality.

Trump has flew high before, then dropped some, then after Paris spiked again. Now he's dropped again after alot of negative press. But considering the amount of press and his own missteps, he's not dropped that far. That is a sign of strength, not weakness.

All he needs to do is bat the balloon in the air again to get his numbers up. Now as for the others, yes, as others drop out that support will consolidate to the top four. But if Trump, and he has hinted as such, would pick one of those: Cruz, Carson, or Rubio as his running mate, if he is still on top after the first few electoral contests, he would cinch the nomination hands down. You need to factor that move into the calculations.

So all in all, as good as your argument sounds, it's fairly weak. I see nothing yet where Trump is in danger by any other factor than himself. I predict better than 50/50 that it will stay that way. Cruz IMO is the only one with the outside shot if pulling ahead of him.

Until the nomination is cinched, Trump would look foolish designating any of the other top three as his VP as they would still be in the contest.

We just disagree. I despise Donald Trump and think he would wreck down-ballot races and would probably cost the GOP the Senate.  He would not beat Hillary, contrary to all the wishful-thinking from his acolytes.

[GAJohnnie]

1. The article you cite was not written by Eric Erickson but by Jay Caruso. Perhaps if you were not in such a hurry to dismiss it, you might have notice[/b][/i][/u]d.

Clever attempt at diversion by you but utterly irreverent to the point I was making. If you had bothered to look at the page this article is on you would see Erick Erickson name in big bold letters at the top of the page. My mistake of assuming the name at the top of the page, in big bold letter, was the byline.

2. Mr. Caruso has written not a news article but an opinion piece. It contains his opinions. In support of those opinions, Mr. Caruso presents factual assertions, such as that Trump has expressed support for the Supreme Court's "Kelo" ruling and for a continuation of Federal funding for Planned Parenthood. He refers to Trump's statements about 9/11 and his comments about Carly Fiorina's face. He notes that both Clintons were honored guests at his (second) wedding. Such things are a matter of public record. They exist in news reports. You may question Mr. Caruso's interpretation of Trump's statements, but you cannot simply dismiss that the author lacks any factual basis for his opinions, much less that he has not cited the reasons for them.

Yes I can dismiss them as there is no factual evidence presented to support Mr Caruso claims of such statements on Kelo. Trump expressed support on the concept of Eminent Domain., an internationally recognized legal principal around for centuries,  Knee jerk critics, looking for anything to attack where Trump is concerned, fraudulently claimed that defense was an endorsement of the particular issues involve in the Kelso Decision. Mr Trump made no such statement. Mr Caruso claim to the contrary is fraudulent.

Planned parenthood. Given the fraudulent nature of Mr Caruso' initial claim about Mr Trump, we must suspect that his PP claim is also fraudulent since he provides no specific quotes to back up his claim. Mr Caruso has been proven irresponsible and careless in his assertions. Given his demonstrate lack of intellectual credibility on this topic, burden of poof rests with him, not the accused.

Again, documented and video proof support Mr Trump's statements on 09-11 which additionally reduces Mr Caruso's credibility on this topic. One can quibble about the numbers of Muslim celebrants in New Jersey but the basic facts of Mr Trumps 09-11 statements have been documented beyond reasonable challenge.

Bill and Hillary Clinton. As yes, the oldest weakest logical fallacy. "Guilt by Association". Bill and Hillary Clinton were honored guest of GW and Laura Bush at the White House. Based on the "logic" presented here by Mr Caruso. GW and Laura Bush are now Liberal Democrats pretending to be Republicans

3. If you wish to offer your opinions as to why Donald Trump is the greatest thing since glazed ham, then by all means do so. Explain why the things he is on public record as saying and supporting are not quite as troubling many of us long-time Republicans and conservatives think they are. But please don't deny that we have reasons for our concern. There's plenty of video, mostly because The Donald rarely stops talking.

[/b][/i][/u]


Another clever attempt at diversion. Your statements here are utterly irreverent.  No one at any point challenges your concerns or opinions. What was challenged, and successful exposed, was the lack of intellectual honesty, and credibility, of the article

If those with said concerns about Mr Trump were to present them in a rational, thoughtful accurate form, they would be taken seriously. When they try, as Mr Caruso did, to present an emotion based per-determined tirade based on a reckless disregard for both logic, and factual accuracy, as "thoughtful commentary"  they will be dismissed as the product of a intellectually infantile irrelevancy

[Oceander]

Two reasons I WILL vote for Trump IF he is the nominee:  Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders. This country will not survive under either one of them and to think otherwise is sheer liberal lunacy.

Absolutely.  I detest Trump; he's a blowhard and a clown, but at least he isn't Clinton or Sanders, and I will vote for him if he is, alas, the GOP nominee.  Until then I will oppose him like the dickens.